Mathisen v. Zaikowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mathisen v. Zaikowski

281 A.D. 890, 119 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3689

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 890 (Mathisen v. Zaikowski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mathisen v. Zaikowski, 281 A.D. 890, 119 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs appeal from an order marking the action off the General Calendar of the Trial Term of the Supreme Court in Kings County, and placing it on a Deferred Calendar, made in pursuance of subdivision (bb) of rule II of the Rules of said Trial Term (Bender’s Court Rules [1952 Cum. Supp.], p. 145). Order reversed, without costs, and the action is ordered restored to its regular position on the General Calendar. The affidavits of the physicians who treated the plaintiff wife for her injuries and plaintiffs’ bill of particulars do not indicate that this is a proper ease for application of the stated rule. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Beldock, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiffs appeal from an order marking the action off the General Calendar of the Trial Term of the Supreme Court in Kings County, and placing it on a Deferred Calendar, made in pursuance of subdivision (bb) of rule II of the Rules of said Trial Term (Bender’s Court Rules [1952 Cum. Supp.], p. 145). Order reversed, without costs, and the action is ordered restored to its regular position on the General Calendar. The affidavits of the physicians who treated the plaintiff wife for her injuries and plaintiffs’ bill of particulars do not indicate that this is a proper ease for application of the stated rule. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Beldock, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 890, 119 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathisen-v-zaikowski-nyappdiv-1953.